United States v. Kimmy

This
matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Gregory
Allen Kimmy's Motion for a Hearing on Detention and for a
Grant of Pre-Trial Release. (Doc. Nos. 301 & 304.) On
August 24, 2017, the United States of America (the
“Government”) filed a Motion for Detention and
Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Release. (Doc. No.
342.) On September 1, 2017, Defendant filed a Response to
Government's Motion for Detention and Opposition to
Defendant's Motion for Release. (Doc. No. 350.)

On May
30, 2017, the Government filed an emergency motion to stay
and for review and revocation of the Magistrate Judge's
release order. (Doc. No. 58.) On May 30, 2017, this Court
filed an Order granting the Government's motion for
emergency stay pending the Court's ruling on the
Government's motion. On June 1, 2017, the Court filed an
Order and Memorandum ordering Defendant detained pending
further order of this Court. (Doc. No. 72.)

On
September 19, 2017, a detention hearing was held before the
undersigned. At the hearing, the Court took the matter under
advisement.

Defendant
was allegedly one of the house bosses for the sex-trafficking
organization. House bosses would run the day-to-day
operations, including advertising victims for commercial sex
acts, procuring and maintaining the houses of prostitution,
scheduling sex buyers, and ensuring that a portion of the
cash was routed back to pay down the victim's bondage
debts. (Indictment ¶ 5b.) In exchange, house bosses
retained a significant portion of the cash that the victims
received, typically forty percent. (Id.) House
bosses would also coordinate with traffickers and other house
bosses to facilitate the victims' travel to other cities
in the United States. (Id.) Once victims were lured
to the United States, they were forced to work long
hours-often all day, every day- having sex with strangers to
attempt to pay down their bondage debt. Victims typically did
not have the ability to choose with whom they had sex, what
sex transactions they would engage in, or when they would
have sex. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Defendant
and his wife are both indicted house bosses in this case.
(Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant and his wife are lessors
of a house where law enforcement observed activity consistent
with an active house of prostitution-i.e., a series of men,
later identified by the victims as sex buyers, entering and
leaving the house at hourly intervals. (Doc. No. 58 at 8-9.)
Defendant was observed at the house of prostitution, and a
phone number associated with him was used to schedule sex
buyers. (Kimmy I, Doc. No. 17 (“Order”)
¶ 2.) Additionally, the Government states that
witnesses-including a co-defendant- will testify that
Defendant was a house boss. Moreover, the Government asserts
that at least one victim will connect Defendant to the human
trafficking conspiracy by testifying that she was transported
around the United States, including to Defendant's house
of prostitution.

Defendant
has consistently asserted that the allegations against him
constitutes, if anything, misdemeanor prostitution in the
State of Texas, and he has steadfastly denied that he has any
connection to an international sex-trafficking conspiracy.
However, in seeking search warrants, Special Agent Price set
out specifics about Defendant's alleged role in the
criminal conspiracy. Specifically, Agent Price identified
victims known by the nicknames “Ray” and
“Lekki” who worked out of the West Wells Branch
Parkway apartment leased by Kimmy and his wife. Ray reported
that she had recently paid off her $40, 000 bondage debt
without specifying to whom, but without suggesting that it
was Defendant or his wife, and also stated that during her
period of debt, she worked in various houses of prostitution,
including significantly, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and, at
Kimmy's place, in Austin. Ray also identified Defendant
by photograph and disclosed that she had to pay him half of
the money earned from commercial sex acts. Ray also stated
that she received text messages from Defendant regarding the
range of commercial sex acts with the phone number that is
associated with Defendant.

Pursuant
to Rule 46(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and
18 U.S.C. § 3142, the Court considered the following
factors in assessing the continued detention of Defendant:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.